A reader writes:
Tonight on O’Reilly, he stated that all Catholics believe in "Baptism by Desire." I know that that statement is obviously not true, but my question is: Is "Baptism by Desire" a defined doctrine or dogma of the Church where assent is required? I’ve only been Catholic for a couple of years now, and I’m trying to learn as much as possible.
Searching the internet, I found two articles, both written by Catholic priest, one supporting BBD, the other against it. Both seemed to have valid points. Don’t know which one to believe.
I always hate commenting on things that I haven’t heard or read, because I don’t know the exact words that were used. If O’Reilly said that "all" Catholics believe in baptism by desire then this is technically incorrect. A tiny number of dissident Catholics (Catholics who reject the teaching of the Church) do not accept baptism of desire, flying in the face of the Catholic understanding that has persisted since the early centuries of the Christian age.
That being said, you should believe the page you found by the priest who supported baptism by desire. This is the clear teaching of the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity [SOURCE].
The dissidents on this issue are technically known as Feeneyites, though I seem to recall a certain amount of debate as to whether they correctly represent the beliefs of their founder (ie, have coopted someone who was only faintly heterodox on the subject, or who retracted on being reproved by his superiors). Again, not an uncommon problem with heretics.
RULE 3 VIOLATION.
Whether or not something is a defined dogma, or whether or not something is true, are too different things. Not every denial of a Catholic truth makes one a heretic. That distinction is sometimes missed here.
So too the distinction between an explicit desire for baptism and an implicit desire for it. The teaching on the former is much stronger than the latter. The whole question of how someone with an “implicit desire” can be saved, and whether or not that person would receive the grace for an explicit desire before their death, is a debated question.
Example. Consider the question whether or not explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation are required for salvation. That question has not been settled, even if one can quote a lot of authorities that seem to be implying that an explicit faith isn’t necessary. So too the debate viz a viz implicit vs. explicit desire for baptism, I’d think.
One could maintain the position that everyone who doesn’t have the opportunity for hearing the Gospel is given some interior illumination or somesuch. The whole area is unclear, but I think the tendency today to assume that everyone’s in good faith and on the way of salvation is deadly for the missionary spirit.
I think the more important issue is that everyone agrees that sufficient grace is granted to everyone to be saved. If people want to dispute how that grace plays out in people’s lives, that seems a secondary question.
And considering the Catechism, we can note that apart from discussing the question of Catechumens, it does not settle the issue of how broad “baptism of desire” is to be taken. It merely says that everyone is given the opportunity to be saved, and then says that “we may suppose, etc.” Presumably one might suppose some other means as well, such as sufficient grace to explicitly recognize the truth of Christianity before death, for instance. In any event, check the theological qualifications for “baptism of desire” in all of those old manuals. Very few will qualify it as defined and Catholic truth. As I said, that’s a separate question from whether or not it’s true. I happen to think it is true, but I can’t accuse someone who holds a more rigorous view of heresy necessarily.